Join the Diplomacy Now Mailing list.
Receive each monthly edition direct to your inbox.
August has been a grim month for global diplomacy. There have been deadlocks in two of the world’s most devastating conflicts – the war in Sudan, and Israel’s war on Gaza – with mediators failing to broker an agreement. The conflict in Gaza has reached a tragic toll of 40,000 killed, and with the chief Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh assassinated in Tehran, it is no surprise that recent talks led by the United States, Egypt and Qatar have gone nowhere and the Middle East seems to be teetering on the edge of a regional war. Meanwhile, Sudan sits near state collapse, with thousands dead and millions of civilians facing a hunger crisis, while warring parties failed to come to the table of U.S. facilitated negotiations in Switzerland. The two conflicts, that many in the diplomatic community have described as ‘genocidal,’ have again illustrated the failure of the international system to prevent and resolve deadly conflicts.
In this edition of Diplomacy Now our writers explore diplomatic deadlocks from Yemen, to Iran, Sudan, to Western Sahara, and the consequences of Israel’s assault on Gaza for international law and norms and the role of the United Nations. The common thread amongst all of these conflicts, and in particular Gaza and Sudan, is the unprecedented scale of the atrocities being committed against innocent civilians, the failure of the UN to bring these conflicts to an end or even play a mediating role, and the abysmal pace at which negotiations led by a number of international actors are unfolding.
As with every edition the views expressed by these authors are not all necessarily our own. However, ICDI remains committed to the ethos and philosophy that open debate, dialogue, diplomacy, and mediation, rather than armed conflict and war, offer the way forward to resolving any conflict.
Thank you for reading Diplomacy Now and we welcome your feedback at diplomacynow@dialogueinitiatives.org.
Jamal Benomar
Chair of ICDI
Professor Shahram Akbarzadeh explores the escalating tensions between Iran and Israel in the wake of the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, and what the recent elections mean for the Islamic Republic and its regional policy.
“The killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh while in Tehran for President Pezeshkian’s inauguration was a stark reminder of the combustible nature of regional politics. Pezeshkian may wish to avoid further escalation, but the Supreme Leader and IRGC have promised a response in kind to Israel,” he writes. “They clearly see Iran’s defense credibility undermined by Haniyah’s assassination, requiring appropriate response. This is a highly volatile situation, as any military response to Israel risks drawing the United States into the conflict. As the president, Pezeshkian sits on the Supreme National Security Council and is privy to military deliberations and planning, albeit with little scope to effect change.”
Analyst Maram Mahdi writes that while peace talks and negotiators have “mushroomed” none of them have been successful and Sudanese are losing hope. With more than a year of war and atrocities and 10 million internally displaced and over 25 million facing acute hunger, a coordinated response is urgently needed.
“All these stakeholders, plus some of Sudan’s neighboring countries, have tried to bring the warring parties – the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and Rapid Support Forces (RSF) – to the negotiating table. But is this multiplicity of initiatives helping or hurting Sudan?” she writes. “On the ground, the situation is encouraging the antagonists to forum-shop and buy time while the humanitarian crisis plunges Sudanese into the abyss.”
She argues ultimately the African Union should take the lead. “The AU should use its position to integrate and harmonize peace efforts,” she writes. “The people of Sudan are losing hope with every additional process. The AU roadmap steered by the high-level panel should be the blueprint to which the continental and regional processes align.”
Yemeni analyst and journalist Afrah Nasser looks into the ongoing standoff between the West and the Houthis, in the midst of an attack on Israel and on American and international commercial vessels traveling off Yemen’s Red Sea coastline. Nasser argues that the attacks were unsurprising to Yemenis, particularly due to the longstanding solidarity the Houthis have had with the Palestinian cause. The attacks have made the armed group a significant geopolitical contender, and they will need to be brought to the negotiating table rather than met with military might, if conflict off the coastline is to stop.
“The Houthi group has leveraged these attacks and its overall military escalation capabilities to strengthen its military and political position,” Nasser writes. “The attacks have elevated the group to an international player, prompting Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to adopt a more cautious approach to avoid regional escalation. In addition to its long-standing alliance with Iran, the group has taken advantage of the current war in Gaza to strengthen its ties with Iraq and Russia.”
Moroccan journalist El Houssine Majdoubi Bahida explores whether the West is shifting towards the Monarchy’s stance on ‘autonomy’ in Western Sahara, rather than one of independence backed by the Polisario. What would ‘autonomy’ look like in the context of Moroccan authoritarianism Bahida asks and how will a new Cold War-style political order shape diplomatic relations surrounding one of the world’s oldest running conflicts.
“For the autonomy plan to gain traction among Sahrawis, Morocco would have to transition from autocratic rule to democracy first,” he writes. “This would also involve an end to the arbitrary arrests of peaceful protestors, journalists and human rights activists that have taken place in recent years, stepping up the fight against corruption and holding free and fair elections without excluding any political movement. If Morocco transitions to a genuine democratic system, more Western countries might be inclined to take the autonomy plan more seriously,” he concludes.
International law professor Alfred de Zayas writes an essay that explores the UN’s ties with the establishment of Israel and failure to protect Palestinians in the face of Benjamin Netanyahu’s “rogue state.”
“No one in 1947 would have dreamt that Israel would emerge as a state, be massively supported by the United States and Europe, while the Palestinians would be taken for a ride by the international community, which has only given lip service to Palestinian rights, without any concrete action to materialize a Palestinian State,” he writes. “This situation entails not only violations of international law, but it also constitutes a frontal attack on international morals. Many countries, notably the United States and its vassals are complicit in the serial violation of international law and human rights by successive Israeli governments,” he argues.
Nelson Mandela
Receive each monthly edition direct to your inbox.